Did Protestants save the Catholic Church?

[Gabriel_Serafin]

My question is “did the Protestant Reformation save the Catholic Church?”

Where would the RCC be without the reactive Catholic-Reformation?

The only thing teh Protestant “Reformation” accomplished was to bring division, chaos and confusion into Christendom. Division, chaos and confusion are the hallmarks of demonic influence, which ushered millions of people away from the sacraments and belief in the Real Presence. Luther’s new doctrine of Sola Scriptura became the basis for self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters to found their own sects, which merely laid the foundation for groups such as the Jehova Witnesses, Mormons, etc. to thrive .

Martin Luther was right to point out the scandals and abuses among some of the German clergy. But this necessitated a reform in behavior, not in doctrine. What’s more, scandal always was, is and will be inside the Church Militant, being that Christ warned that there would be weeds among the wheat and wolves among the sheep. Even among Christ’s apostles there was a traitor, and by the third century the Church was in much disarray; but God is in charge, and His Church will last until the end of the ages.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Affecting the CC? In what ways is it affecting the CC?

As I said, we’re becoming very “Evangelical”. Listen to everyday Catholics and compare them with Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Sometimes you can’t tell the difference. I was reading some quotes from a famous Catholic lay preacher in the Philippines and his writings strike me as something I would normally hear from an Evangelical minister. Many Catholics today follow the principle of Sola Scriptura, where they feel everything has to be defended and defined in the Bible in a manner that follows how Protestants do it.

 

[Tony888]

As I said, we’re becoming very “Evangelical”. Listen to everyday Catholics and compare them with Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Sometimes you can’t tell the difference. I was reading some quotes from a famous Catholic lay preacher in the Philippines and his writings strike me as something I would normally hear from an Evangelical minister. Many Catholics today follow the principle of Sola Scriptura, where they feel everything has to be defended and defined in the Bible in a manner that follows how Protestants do it.

I’m not surprised the average man sticks firmly to his Catechism or Bible as a guide (sola scriptura). Going ‘off-script’ can easily lead to heresy, unless you are well schooled.

Also, this approach to doctrine is considered a normal stage of spiritual growth (see James Fowler). We just need them to grow beyond that stage

 

[Nicea325]

As I said, we’re becoming very “Evangelical”. Listen to everyday Catholics and compare them with Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Sometimes you can’t tell the difference. I was reading some quotes from a famous Catholic lay preacher in the Philippines and his writings strike me as something I would normally hear from an Evangelical minister. Many Catholics today follow the principle of Sola Scriptura, where they feel everything has to be defended and defined in the Bible in a manner that follows how Protestants do it.

We’re becoming “Evangical?” Well it all depends on how you apply the word. If you are referring to “Evagelical” Protestants, than I understand. However, evangelical does not apply strictly to the Protestant faiths. Part of the CC mission is to evangelize based on the Gospels. So I see no harm in the term. Everyday Catholics? I am a everyday Catholic I do not consider myself as an “Evangelical” as you seem to apply. The way you are expressing refers to Protestants who hold the Bible-Alone as the sole rule of faith and as Catholics we do not hold such beliefs.

Many Catholics follow the principle SS? Really? I read the Bible everday and I do not express your sentiments.

 

[CopticChristian]

As I said, we’re becoming very “Evangelical”. Listen to everyday Catholics and compare them with Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Sometimes you can’t tell the difference. I was reading some quotes from a famous Catholic lay preacher in the Philippines and his writings strike me as something I would normally hear from an Evangelical minister. Many Catholics today follow the principle of Sola Scriptura, where they feel everything has to be defended and defined in the Bible in a manner that follows how Protestants do it.

It is difficult to accept your evaluation as a non-practicing Roman Catholic?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not surprised the average man sticks firmly to his Catechism or Bible as a guide (sola scriptura). Going ‘off-script’ can easily lead to heresy, unless you are well schooled.

Also, this approach to doctrine is considered a normal stage of spiritual growth (see James Fowler). We just need them to grow beyond that stage

Good point. But often people do not grow beyond the stage an instead develops legalism which in itself is harmful to one’s faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We’re becoming “Evangical?” Well it all depends on how you apply the word. If you are referring to “Evagelical” Protestants, than I understand. However, evangelical does not apply strictly to the Protestant faiths. Part of the CC mission is to evangelize based on the Gospels. So I see no harm in the term. Everyday Catholics? I am a everyday Catholic I do not consider myself as an “Evangelical” as you seem to apply. The way you are expressing refers to Protestants who hold the Bible-Alone as the sole rule of faith and as Catholics we do not hold such beliefs.

Many Catholics follow the principle SS? Really? I read the Bible everday and I do not express your sentiments.

Evangelical means Evangelical Protestants. That is why I capitalize the “E” for it to mean a proper noun rather than an adjective.

I’m not saying Catholics are bible alone, many RCs now show the same “principles” of Sola Scriptura. Again, how many threads here on CAF are themed like, “where in the CCC” or "where in Canon Law’ or “is it on an infallible document”. That’s sola scriptura right there. If its not on writing somewhere, then we don’t believe it. If its not authoritative, then we don’t believe it. The Church Fathers never wrote in such a way. Yes today we see their writings as authoritative and definitive, hundreds of years later. But back then, what then? St. Ignatius of Antioch or St. John Chrysostom

Look at how traditionalists defend their position. Cutting and splicing quotes from Cardinals and Popes the same way Protestants cut and splice scripture to suit their position. We Catholics don’t limit ourselves to scripture alone, but we do tend to follow the same practice of having to prove ourselves with quotes from sources.

It is difficult to accept your evaluation as a non-practicing Roman Catholic?

So you disregard everything I say, not even consider it, because of that? So maybe when I talk about the Canadian way of life, you won’t accept what I say because I have brown skin and Filipino citizenship Maybe you shouldn’t be take business advice from Bill Gates, what does he know, he’s a college drop out, right?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Problem seems to me is “context”. For while the ECFs are of great importance, they are not the end all. For the church continued after the ECFs, and what defines the ECFs? What year did the ECFs stop becoming the ECFs? Should we assume only the First Two centurys are ECFs? Are the ECFs from the 15th century ECFs? And all the Saints, Saints? And if not than which ones are not? Is St Faustina a Saint from last century? Are only the ECFs from after Constantinople important? How about we cut off ECFs from before 300-AD?

Which ones are of most importance with the ECFs and why, and which particular statements they make are more relevant in the Kingdom of God? Oh,…you mean the ones which seem to fit your arguement? The one’s you cherry pick which seem to appeal to one’s side of the debate? Is this how the game is played in the name of God?

Or should we assume the only truth occured “after” the reformation, leaving the fact out that there was a counter reformation. So Apostolic Succession then becomes of non importance? Of couse dirty laundry always draws the most attention,the squeaky wheel threory. For we need no laws or early teachings but only to the extent they serve our goal? Which in truth the ECFs then become totally ignored. Which then claim that the CC is heretical, when in truth if the CC is heretical than there is NO Christian Chruch on Earth, for the gates of hell would have long prevailed and its all a sham. No one left with the truth, for if the truth existed from the start, then one must point out the exact wrong and at which point this exact wrong occured. Which IMHO is folly. For Jesus Christ stated I am with you always till the end of time, and that would mean through all the snares of the devil. and while stating this to his Apostles knowing full well they would pass from this world, then truly this implied to Apostolic Succession. Thus the Mystical Body would prevail from the Gates of Hell, and that my friends means heresy could not, nor ever will prevail. And when did the words of John Calvin or Martin Luther become more relevant than Gods word?

Had their been any truth to this folly then there would be no arguement. For through knowledge is truth and through truth is fact. And their is no arguement to a fact. So it would appear to me Facts are Lacking.

The fact that one isn’t within the Catholic Church certainly doesn’t mean you are lost or following a untruth. It simply implys theirs a lack of unity in the Mystical Body of Christ. To state the CC somehow become lost is a vain statement, made in human error which lacks charity, humility, love and is in direct conflict with the will of God, and which “btw” has never been proven, and certainly not on CAF. For there is not enough intellect together in this entire forum to prove that false claim. When one even begins to approach such a preposterous claim, surely the vanity of ignorance must be immediately recognized.

The constant error is to focus on difference instead of similarity. And somehow conclude the correct path resides in your difference.

Grace and Mercy

 

[CopticChristian]

Evangelical means Evangelical Protestants. That is why I capitalize the “E” for it to mean a proper noun rather than an adjective.

I’m not saying Catholics are bible alone, many RCs now show the same “principles” of Sola Scriptura. Again, how many threads here on CAF are themed like, “where in the CCC” or "where in Canon Law’ or “is it on an infallible document”. That’s sola scriptura right there. If its not on writing somewhere, then we don’t believe it. If its not authoritative, then we don’t believe it. The Church Fathers never wrote in such a way. Yes today we see their writings as authoritative and definitive, hundreds of years later. But back then, what then? St. Ignatius of Antioch or St. John Chrysostom

Look at how traditionalists defend their position. Cutting and splicing quotes from Cardinals and Popes the same way Protestants cut and splice scripture to suit their position. We Catholics don’t limit ourselves to scripture alone, but we do tend to follow the same practice of having to prove ourselves with quotes from sources.

So you disregard everything I say, not even consider it, because of that? So maybe when I talk about the Canadian way of life, you won’t accept what I say because I have brown skin and Filipino citizenship Maybe you shouldn’t be take business advice from Bill Gates, what does he know, he’s a college drop out, right?

You appear to have some anger.

Consider this in you equation. What is the history of the Catechism? Has it always been there. When did Canon law originate? Has it always been there? Put that into the formula with you discern as the early Church to now.

You judge Catholicism and Catholics by the CAF. Consider that this forum is unique. In my daily walk I rarely have to discuss or prove anything. Consider the nature of what is being done here with the question, answer, deny, accept format.

I have no problem with your brown skin and Fillipino citizenship. I would not eat balut, I would eat lumpia and when I was in Manilla I enjoyed myself…many walls had written on them “Bawal Umihi Dito” and in buildings was written “Bawal manigarillio dito”…

Concerning Bill Gates. Bill is a practicing businessman.

 

[Denise1957]

The only thing teh Protestant “Reformation” accomplished was to bring division, chaos and confusion into Christendom. Division, chaos and confusion are the hallmarks of demonic influence, which ushered millions of people away from the sacraments and belief in the Real Presence. Luther’s new doctrine of Sola Scriptura became the basis for self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters to found their own sects, which merely laid the foundation for groups such as the Jehova Witnesses, Mormons, etc. to thrive .

Martin Luther was right to point out the scandals and abuses among some of the German clergy. But this necessitated a reform in behavior, not in doctrine. What’s more, scandal always was, is and will be inside the Church Militant, being that Christ warned that there would be weeds among the wheat and wolves among the sheep. Even among Christ’s apostles there was a traitor, and by the third century the Church was in much disarray; but God is in charge, and His Church will last until the end of the ages.